LECTURE VI.

THE ULTIMATE ISSUE.

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." — ST. JOHN xviii. 37.

IN

N this passage we are told how the particular issue which is now to engage our thought, and with the consideration of which this series of lectures is to end, was raised in the trial of our Lord. He had just repudiated once more, and in terms, all claim to temporal sovereignty. He had just declared, in the most solemn manner, that his kingdom was not of this world. But, as has been well pointed out, the words in which this renunciation was made, "not only deny; they affirm; if not of this world, then of another world. They assert this other world before the representative of those who boasted of their 'orbis terrarum.' I It was this implied claim to another kingdom that led to Alford, in loc.

Pilate's further question, in which, with disguised impatience and sarcasm, he asked, "Art thou a king then?" Nevertheless, Pilate's question was not altogether sarcastic. He must have had some dim sense of the meaning that lay hid in the reserve of Jesus. He must have dimly felt that a new and strange conjuncture had been arrived at in the political history of the world, when, at the bar of the imperial power, there stood one who, though unarmed and defenceless, and who, though he repudiated earthly royalty, yet claimed, nevertheless, to be a king. Strange claim, and startling, too, in that cruel, haughty presence, and within that martial hall! ling to the Cæsar's representative, to hear that there was a kingdom which rested on something else than the might of arms; which could exist without measuring swords with Roman legionaries; which earthly pomp could not overawe, and earthly power could not take away. "Art thou a king then?" It raised the question which state-craft has ever since been propounding; too often unheeding, as Pilate did, the wonderful answer of Jesus, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world,

Strange and start

that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

The kingdom which Jesus repudiated is here set over against the kingdom which he claimed. It will be instructive to contrast the one with the other. We have seen that the first, as represented by the imperial procurator, based its pretension to authority upon a certain divine right. Nevertheless, in the thought of Jesus, its true authority, as we have also seen, rested simply on the consent, or, if you please, the submission, of the governed. The first contrast, then, between the kingdom repudiated by Jesus, and that claimed by him, which challenges our attention, arises out of the fact, that the one was from beneath, the other from above; the one was merely secular and civil, the other was theocratic and spiritual; the one was of this world, the other was not of this world. The distinction heretofore pointed out between the Church as a theocracy, and the State as a political and civil arrangement, which, however authoritative, yet derives its authority from human consent, was obviously present to the mind of Jesus. pointed out, that the two kingdoms are not only not identical, but that they cannot be; that they

He

are incompatible, since they rest on principles wholly different. He not only asserted that his kingdom was not of this world, but he proceeded to show that it could not be, by further indicating the nature of his own royalty. And, in doing this, he spoke as one having inherent authority; as one who was born for the purpose of exercising this dominion; as one who came into the world to be a king. This, then, is the fundamental distinction between Church and State, between Christianity and civil society. The one is theocratic: the other is democratic, or popular. The one derives its real authority from beneath the other, from above. The one is of this world: the other is not

of this world.

The next obvious point of contrast is found in the difference between the objects which are to be served by the two kingdoms. The object

of the one is the maintenance of external order. The object of the other is the establishment of truth. The one has to do with those matters of expediency and propriety which are committed to it. The other has to do with the eternal things which concern the souls of men, and which each soul must face and deal with in his own person

ality. By implication it is here declared, that with this latter function the kingdoms of this world have nothing whatever to do. In the peculiar claim which Jesus here made to exclusive dominion in the realm of truth, he declared that the State has no right or authority over conscience. Not more distinctly did he himself repudiate the sword of secular power than he denied the right of the State to wield the sword of spiritual power; and, in making this distinction, he enacted the real separateness of Church and State, not only renouncing in terms the right of the Church to control or even interfere in things political, but also declaring, by necessary implication, that the dominion of the State does not rightly include the realm of conscience and the domain of truth. Could the distinction thus made have been always preserved in Christian thought, it is easy to see how the numberless evils of Byzantinism and the Papacy could never have arisen; how almost all the strifes and contentions which have disgraced Christian history might have been avoided; and how the real royalty of Christ might long since have been acknowledged, even in this world: for it is only by keeping steadily in view his own